I'm suprised no one has brought up Pat Califia's recent essay in Counterpunch. It certainly functions as a 'naught/Bushies' America sexualist ontology diatribe. The Necessity of Excess" http://www.counterpunch.org/califa1019.html Interestingly, she couches her defense in spiritual terms: Desire was made a part of our nature not only to draw us closer to one another but to urge us on to our ultimate source and rest. When we shelter one another's desires, even those that are strange or degrading, we borrow a little divine grace and provide a smaller version of the shelter of that transcendental love. After all, is this not where life began, in mud and blood, spit and cum? Are they not holy? The man who arranges himself in a sling, awaiting anointing with Crisco, has come in perfect love and trust like a child to baptism. Lust can be a sacrament that washes us clean of envy, pride and anomie, and returns us to daily life with a satisfied heart, renewed hope and greater compassion.
I think all the points have been made here though really and it breaks down into two private/public (commerce) issues: 1. What people do in private, without coercion, should be respected, and their right to do it, talk about it etc.. should be defended- the basic 'liberal' tenet most on this list have agreed with. 2. The commercial aspect of sex which, also, most have agreed that work is work but, yeah, people are a bit higher paid and happy when they are self-managing/owners of their enterprise (e.g. Good Vibes, Thai freelancers). Anyhow all work in commodified terms is prostitution. The question is, since "lust" in the above could be easily exchanged with, say, "entheogens" (hello Thomas! ) can sexual politics really ever take a commanding lead in the battle for liberation? And speaking of entheogens--they are much, much more legally prohibited, repressed, lied about, tabooed and generally disdained as a topic for leftist debate than sex. Not that they are completely ignored as the many attacks on the "war on drugs" show. These natural substances also occupy an ambiguous and contradictory position vis-a-vis legal, yet less beneficial, pharmaceuticals, their de facto quasi-legalization, puritanical misinformation campaigns, etc., similar to issues of sexual politics. Thus said, I do not want to start an "anti-entheogen" left debate nor even an "anti-spiritual" left debate...ya' know what I mean? Greg Lipman